Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Space Station Crew Lands Safely In Kazakhstan

Posted by Zonk on from the yay-for-earth dept.

loid_void writes "It's being reported on CNN that a space capsule carrying a U.S.-Russian-Italian crew has landed safely in northern Kazakhstan, following a mission aboard the international space station. Search-and-rescue helicopters spotted the capsule as it floated toward its designated arrival site and made a soft landing, upright. It had undocked with the orbiting station less than 3 hours earlier. Mission Control said the crew reported feeling fine. Remaining behind on the space station are Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev and American astronaut John Phillips."

119 comments

  1. Yay! they're back by nounderscores · · Score: 3, Funny

    But I wish they'd hit the taco bell target on one trip home.

    Sure, I won't get a taco, but the thing's been built. It really should be used.

    Well, here's to their safe return and the many long months of eating spinach, drinking milk and taking calcium pills as they rebuild their strength.

    1. Re:Yay! they're back by Nadsat · · Score: 0

      At least they didn't land in Iraq. Coming back from outer space to find the harsh realities may be a real downer.

      --

      The Custom Mary
    2. Re:Yay! they're back by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      Is anyone tracking where that thing is right now? I just assumed that after the stint was over, someone salvaged it, or it just disintegrated after a while. Would be pretty neat to run across it one day.

    3. Re:Yay! they're back by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      Good point. It would be neat to visit the target, and I'd like to know where it is, so I don't run across it and get it stuck in my propeller.

    4. Re:Yay! they're back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can see it:

      "Allah... Holy shit! Look what we shot down this time!"

    5. Re:Yay! they're back by neko9 · · Score: 1

      Karlson is that you??

    6. Re:Yay! they're back by vwjeff · · Score: 1

      Look on the bright side. Iraq isn't the worst place to land. At least there are soldiers there unlike North Korea and Iran. At least not yet.

  2. I told uI was hardcore by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gotta love how those Russians are willing to drop their space heros onto hard ground.

    None of that fancy schmancy airplane lookalike space vehicles for them!

    1. Re:I told uI was hardcore by everett3 · · Score: 0

      they've got so much of it though, might as well find some use of it.

    2. Re:I told uI was hardcore by Bayleaf · · Score: 1

      No, the melted snow made the ground quite moist. Really they splashed down in the steppes.

      --
      I might not be a wit, but at least I am more than half way there.
    3. Re:I told uI was hardcore by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well they aren't just dropping them straight down into the ground, correct me if im wrong but they use rockets to first slow the capsule down and then use a parachute to get them down. People use parachutes all the time, no biggie =)

    4. Re:I told uI was hardcore by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, parachutes (3 of them) are used first, retrorockets are fired in the very last moment to make landing soft.

    5. Re:I told uI was hardcore by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

    6. Re:I told uI was hardcore by GORby_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least they don't have too many of their space crews going KABOOM on takeoff or landing ;-)
      When I would have to choose between takeoff/landing in an american or in a russian vehicle, I'd gladly trade some of the comfort for a better chance of returning in one piece.

      Gotta love their safety record when it comes to manned space travel...

    7. Re:I told uI was hardcore by MosesJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or put it another way

      "Gotta love hot those Russians have worked out that the cheapest thing to do is build a big parachute and some retro rockets, not invest billions in something they just don't need"

      The Russians have done engineering, while NASA has done politics.

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    8. Re:I told uI was hardcore by qqod · · Score: 1

      It's good how they manage to land safely though.

    9. Re:I told uI was hardcore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would have had more space crews to blow up if their most powerful rocket hadn't blown up on the launch pad in the 60's and destroyed the rocket, the launch facility, and any hope of them beating the US to the moon.

      Their rockets can blow up real good. Oh yeah.

  3. Its terribly sad.... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That we pretty much pull out of the space program and 'invest heavily' into fighting the bugaboo of the day.

    Its now to the point that we're literally afraid to "fly" in space. Thanks to the shuttle entry-blow up, that's retarded apace-flight by how long? 2 years? 4 years? "Until it's safe?"

    The russians have a damned good idea there. They actually fly, knowing the risks. They also are MORE CAPITALISTIC as they actually accept chaperoned flights from 'thrill seekers'.

    Just think, what kind of tech did they have back in the Apollo moon landing? Computers? Hardly. Look what we have now, and look how we ignore to use it. They didnt.

    --
    1. Re:Its terribly sad.... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1, Interesting

      where to start... let me start with your last one...

      "Just think, what kind of tech did they have back in the Apollo moon landing? Computers? Hardly. Look what we have now, and look how we ignore to use it. They didnt."

      They DONT NEED faster computers to run the space ships, what they need is redundant computers.

      "The russians have a damned good idea there. They actually fly, knowing the risks. They also are MORE CAPITALISTIC as they actually accept chaperoned flights from 'thrill seekers'."

      Sure, they do have cheaper flights and have chaperoned flights for rich "thrill seekers." But, here in the US we are actually trying to get a private spaceflight industry up and running and the US Government is also trying to help that industry to get on its feet. If you don't believe me and think that the government is only into pork barrel politics and into funding Lockheed and Boeing, go watch this http://www.house.gov/science/webcast/index.htm
      Ch eck out the "Webcast of Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics - Hearing
      Future Market for Commercial Space"

      And yes there are risks, everyone knows that. The thing NASA has is that they are trying to minimize the risks that they can so that they can prevent the loss of human life.

      "Its now to the point that we're literally afraid to "fly" in space. Thanks to the shuttle entry-blow up, that's retarded apace-flight by how long? 2 years? 4 years? "Until it's safe?""

      Yeah, its been 2 years since the US has been capable of sending men into space with its own equipment. But like ive said, they aren't Afraid of going into space, the problem is that they want to reduce all risks that can be reduced because the shuttle's are pretty damned expensive and they don't want to lose any of them.

      "
      That we pretty much pull out of the space program and 'invest heavily' into fighting the bugaboo of the day.
      "

      How are we doing that?

    2. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Adrilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why privatizing space missions is clearly the answer. Our government has dropped the ball and it's time for some enterprising corporation(s) to pick it up and run with it. I look forward to seeing what more open-minded people can come up with (if they can get past all the red tape).

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    3. Re:Its terribly sad.... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's definetly not the answer. The answer involves everyone, not just the private industry.

      More open-minded people are good, but theres always a balance that needs to be taken when making decisions that cost billions and billions of dollars.

    4. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Adrilla · · Score: 1

      please elaborate

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    5. Re:Its terribly sad.... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a bit more complicated than that. You can't just grab a P4 chip and throw it on a satellite or the shuttle. There are 2 immediate problems.

      First: technology readiness level (TRL). In order for a P4 chip to be put into space, it would need to go through about 1000x more testing than Intel currently puts it through. The last thing you want is the guidance chip on a satellite to produce a single error during a trajectory manuever and have the thing come crashing down to Earth or fly out on some highly elliptical orbit. TRL rates from 0 (concept/prototype) to 10 (repeatedly flight-proven hardware). A P4 chip would be somewhere around 2 - production capable, but no flight testing or flight experience. The space shuttle uses stuff in the 6 or 7 and above range.

      Second: operating environment (included in the above TRL, but of particular concern due to the nasty conditions of space). Intense radiation from the Sun and space, inability to easily radiate heat away, etc. RAD-hard components are needed for anything going into space.

      For current space-ready equipment, we're talking on the order of 6 MFLOPS ... aprox 30 MIPS at 20 MHz. You are not going to run Doom or Quake on this stuff.

    6. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe they will in 20 years, there is no profit right now for the type of things the government does and the initial costs are too great for any sane investor. If you're going to complain about how much the Shuttle incident has "set us back" then private space companies are not the answer. You can't have it both ways.

    7. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Draveed · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing entreprenourship with desperation. The Russian space agency isn't putting millionaire tourists in space because they want to. They do it because they need the money. The Russian space agency (who's name I forget) is made up of real scientists who want to be doing serious science, not monitoring joyrides.

      --
      Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
    8. Re:Its terribly sad.... by scbysnx · · Score: 0

      seriously why is this modded insightful? most of what he said is misguided and show's that he doesn't know what he's talking about... or she...

    9. Re:Its terribly sad.... by nounderscores · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can't just grab a P4 chip and throw it on a satellite.

      What about cubesats? They seemed to be a way around the red tape when they were reported on slashdot a while ago. Using unmanned launchers and cheap disposable sats allows you to get up there fast, do your mission and throw away the junk at the end.

    10. Re:Its terribly sad.... by albamuth · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I can't imagine a corporate risk and cost analysis that would give the thumbs-up to space exploration. Space tourism, maybe, but even if it only cost $1000, what's the point? The only point of manned flights is to research manned space flight to make way for what...Mars landings? Colonizing Alpha Centari? Not to disparage those purposes, but what profit would private enterprise possibly see in those ends? That would be like waiting 30 years (at least) for the return on the investment, which no company is willing to do unless it's controlled by some Howard Hughes type (eccentric weirdo). Shareholders will not vote for long term space exploration.

      How about this: Instead of paying the gov't tax dollars to plunder natural resources, we decide where our "surplus" income goes to? What if the tax form included a checklist where you decided yea or nay on things like social security, defense spending, paying back national debt, NASA's budget and so forth?

      Even better, how about some Non-governmental, non-profit space agency that gets funded by a bunch of geeks with nothing better to spend their money on? (and by the way, avoid paying taxes altogether) I bet there's already a web site...

      --
      [pink beam of light]
    11. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Mandoric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because private shipbuilders can do fine cranking out cargo barges, cruiseliners, and yachts doesn't mean there's no use for battleships, icebreakers, and submarines.

      While a strong private presence in space will certainly increase the level of traffic, the fact remains that when it comes down to building the largest ships, those designed for the longest hauls, and those with arcane research purposes, only "national interest" and "national security" can drum up the funding even on the Earth's oceans.

      That said, what's an "arcane research purpose" can change drastically with time... Columbus once undertook a research voyage funded by Spanish royalty, that's today a routine cruise or cargo shipment. As human presence beyond the Earth increases, clear, safe profits will open up, and businesses will go for them.

      It's just that any man landing on the moon today will be there to plant a flag. His sucessor will be there to build a home. And then, after that, comes room for the enterpreneur offering the comforts of Earth shipped up and cheap vacation fares back.

    12. Re:Its terribly sad.... by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      Cubesats are 10cmx10cmx10cm, or sometimes three of such blocks connected together. You don't use a P4 on such a satellite for obvious reasons.

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    13. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Adrilla · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How about this: Instead of paying the gov't tax dollars to plunder natural resources, we decide where our "surplus" income goes to? What if the tax form included a checklist where you decided yea or nay on things like social security, defense spending, paying back national debt, NASA's budget and so forth?

      The problem with this is a lot of important programs will be underfunded.

      Perfectly healthy people could end up not caring about disability, and that leaves disabled people without enough money for their healthcare. Rich people wont care about Social Security (they fund a significant amount of it currently) because they'll never need it, so your mom won't have that money to fall back upon when she retires if a few years.

      Little, yet important programs that you never think about get no money because no one will think they're worthy (music in schools, homeless iniatives, public libraries, could be anything).

      Not to mention the extra work of having to read a thousand+ page book every tax period that explains all the programs you'll be voting on, I'm sure after you've done all your taxes and deductions, (adding line C to line E, subtract section 12) you wont be wanting to have to read about and pick from thousands of programs so you can choose which deserves your money.

      It's simply not the answer.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    14. Re:Its terribly sad.... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      Yeh, because when you have mission critical applications and astronaut's lives at stake you go with a 10cm x 10cm x 10cm amateur satellite developed over the course of a year or two by university students in their spare time. I looked around at their testing documents and see no mention of RAD testing at all.

      Don't get me wrong, I think CubeSat is awesome, but it's a hobby project for university students. There's only so much you can do in that type of environment. And it can't match the work of 1000s of seasoned engineers working 50 hours a week.

    15. Re:Its terribly sad.... by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even better, how about some Non-governmental, non-profit space agency that gets funded by a bunch of geeks with nothing better to spend their money on? (and by the way, avoid paying taxes altogether) I bet there's already a web site...

      Like the Planetary Society? On May 31, they'll be launching Cosmos 1, the first solar sail spacecraft. Here's a Nature article. According to the page, it'll be "the first space mission ever flown by a non-governmental advocacy group."

      Another interesting philanthropic project was Elon Musk's Mars Oasis project to put an experimental greenhouse on the surface of Mars. He hired a team to do some preliminary designs and cost analysis, and found that actually building the thing was pretty affordable for him. However, the launch costs weren't as affordable as he wanted (they would've been the most expensive part of the entire project), so he decided to redirect his efforts towards SpaceX to lower those costs. I suspect the Mars Oasis project is still on the back-burner, and he may pursue it again once he gets launch costs low enough.

    16. Re:Its terribly sad.... by asuffield · · Score: 1

      For current space-ready equipment, we're talking on the order of 6 MFLOPS ... aprox 30 MIPS at 20 MHz. You are not going to run Doom or Quake on this stuff.

      I dunno, you should be able to run Doom on that. Wouldn't get much of a graphics display out of it, but who cares? Quake might be pushing it, but not by much. It's not like trying to run Half-Life.

    17. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Pentium II processors and Pentium processors have been "Space Rated" for a long time now. What do you think is driving around those rovers on mars? an old Intel 4004?

      Shielding tech nowdays, espically in a craft reduce the needs for hardened chips. A 3 mm of aluminum can block most of the gamma crap even in the van allen belts. (one of the "reasons" the we did not go to the moon wack-jobs use... that the van-allen belts are full of horribly lethal radiation.. they gloss over the fact that it is not hard to shield yourself from it. or that it's in a "belt" and not a sphere that encompasses the globe)

      Most of the time they use processors that can do the job and no more because of POWER CONSUMPTION and not other reasons. If the flight computers can do their job at 16 mhz adding a margin of 20 odd percent and goingto a 20 mhz processor will save huge amounts in power consumption compared to a wasteful 233mhz with mmx who's only use is to run a horribly inefficent OS and GUI that is not needed.

      remember these astronauts are scientists and pilots, not drooling morons that require a pretty GUI and mouse.

      I would rather my Guidance computer use 12 watts in normal mode than 60 watts.... because in a power emergency where I have 1/10th the power capacity I can still use guidance...

      THAT is the reason. and Certianly not what you mentioned.

    18. Re:Its terribly sad.... by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      I think the complaint has to do with that very same state of the art that you're talking about. Nobody wanted to throw a P4 into the shuttle and have it do all kinds of crazy things. The problem is that the technology we're using doesn't seem to be improving over time. NASA is dumpster diving and/or paying top dollar for old 486 systems, because that's the best thing they're allowed to use.

      I, and probably a lot of other people, would love to see this state of the art move forward. Get a few more processors and systems out of TRL2 and up to TRL6 so NASA can use them in missions. I don't care what it is ... maybe take a Power4 and put it through its paces. But whatever it is, it's about time we did it.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    19. Re:Its terribly sad.... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      i highly doubt they are dumpster diving for kit that actually goes into space (i belive they have been known to do it for fixing old ground support systems though)

      a 486 that goes into space isn't going to be a normal 486 its going to be a version with rad hardening and possiblly other changes

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    20. Re:Its terribly sad.... by robertjw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Columbus once undertook a research voyage funded by Spanish royalty

      That's an interesting example. The difference between Columbus' voyage an NASA's work is that the Spanish royal family was interested in making money. In fact, I can't think of one of the early exploration voyages to the Americas that was motivated primarily by research or national security. Magellen, Cortez, Hudson, Drake, they were all motivated to find a way to India, or to take riches from the new world. Some of that exploration may have been funded by the governments, but much of it was private, and nearly all of it was motivated by money.

      --
      Find coupons in Greeley
    21. Re:Its terribly sad.... by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      Good point. It's probably not for machines that they send into space. I guess you read the same article as I did (can't find the link for it). But I recall that they needed those old 486 systems because they needed machines on the ground that were equivalent to the ones they were sending up. Otherwise, why not just use modern hardware? (Actually, I think it might have been because their software was written improperly and depended on the clockspeed of the processor it was written for...)

      Anyhow, that's old and crappy. Why hasn't the state of the art progressed since it was invented? I know it's difficult and expensive, but somebody needs to invest in it. Private industry is soon going into space, and will need processors that can handle the calculations they're doing and can withstand the rigors of space travel. If they do the R&D ... does NASA want to be in the position of having to license space technology from private companies in order to fly? What happened to them being the leaders?

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    22. Re:Its terribly sad.... by lw54 · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember ASCII Doom?

    23. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      yes, but I've the mod points.

      I see you at a nice 0 level.. Wonder why?

      BTW, im a he ;-)

      --
    24. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Mandoric · · Score: 1

      One could argue that, especially in those days, "money" and "prestige" were synonymous with "security". Certainly, Spain's high position in Europe rose and fell on the back of exclusive trading with the colonies. Of course, I'll grant that such things were nowhere in the motives of the explorers; only those that funded them.

    25. Re:Its terribly sad.... by bbc · · Score: 1

      As I write this I am watching a compilation of clips about the return trip on NASA TV. While Sergei Krikalev was closing the hatch, you could hear John Philips explain that his work was going slow, because he was using floppy disks to transfer data on. He also said something about needing USB (solid state?) disks, I did not quite catch that. Would these work on the ISS?

      BTW, it is fairly trivial to see for yourself what they are using up there, as NASA publish hi-res photos of the interior of the ISS.

      Now NASA TV is running a longish interview with Leroy Chiao. He confirmed that the capsule roled over to its side upon landing.

  4. template journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article must have been written before the landing took place. The capsule landed on its side. Futhermore, the crew were transferred to Arkalyk where medical staff awaited them, not the other way around.

    1. Re:template journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you have a reference? or are you just trolling?

    2. Re:template journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trolling.

      because even if it dod land on it's side nothing would happen to the astronuts.

      they are wearing seatbelts and are strapped in. it's not like they were having a coctail party on the way down and then got slammed into the walls.

      some of the stupidity on slashdot is amazing.

    3. Re:template journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Remember that Russia is "The Enemy", "The Big Evil", etc. Some people still couldn't get past those idiotic old misconceptions our government spoonfed us for decades.

      So, no matter what they do, it's still never good enough, we could do it much better, and they always show an utmost disregard for safety or value for the human life. Even if ours blow up on re-entry and kills everyone. Ours are much better, of course. God save our mighty engineers, so that those commie bastards can copy our designs.

      *sigh*

    4. Re:template journalism by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      yeah, lets just forget about the millions of people that died in Russia becasue of the government...

      They were doing it to be "nice"

      Funny how easy it is to forget things isn't it?

    5. Re:template journalism by coopex · · Score: 1

      For an interesting account of the USSR from the 50's to 90's, mostly during the 80's to Yelstein, check out Lenin's Tomb by David Remnick. It avoids most of the pro/anti Soviet propaganda in many other books i've read, and I never realized how much Gorbachev did for freedom, or even Kruschev. I highly recommend it.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  5. funny comedy scene... by versiondub · · Score: 1, Funny

    Would be if the astronauts landed during a gunbattle in Falluja. Ok, so maybe not THAT funny...but still...

    1. Re:funny comedy scene... by 36+6_42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I fail to see the link between astronauts landing in Kazakhstan and a gun battle in Falluja. Would it be funny if there was a tornado in Regina while SpaceShipOne landed in Nevada?

    2. Re:funny comedy scene... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      A tornado in Regina - lmao!!! ... SpaceShipOne, lol!!!

      Man, that was a good one, now that I spit coffee all over my desk.

    3. Re:funny comedy scene... by |<amikaze · · Score: 1


      I don't know why, but I'm always compelled to chuckle whenever somewhere close to here gets mentioned!

      Regina sucks. Saskatoon rules!

  6. In my country there is problem... by charlie763 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And that problem is the shuttle.
    Throw the shuttle down the well
    And my country will be free

    --
    Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
    1. Re:In my country there is problem... by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Informative

      The shuttle isn't the problem... Not to mention, the shuttle is getting retired in 5 years right after it finishes getting the ISS "Core Complete(all the US stuff up there basically)"

      The problem is the gap between 2010 and 2014 when there won't be a shuttle or a man rated CEV to get us into space. Thankfully the new NASA administrator Michael Griffin is fully aware of that problem and is working his butt off to eliminate that problem. That's why I love the new NASA administrator and whoever is president 4 years from now, I swear if they change the NASA administrator, im going to kick their ass!

    2. Re:In my country there is problem... by charlie763 · · Score: 1
      Reprinted formt the HBO web page

      Borat Sagdiyev is Kazakhstan's sixth most famous man. A leading journalist from the State run TV network, Borat has been sent to the United States to report on all aspects of American life. From baseball to Broadway, Borat asks the questions no westerner would dream of in his tireless quest for knowledge, telling dating agencies he will 'crush' women who are unfaithful, touching the penises of Vietnam veterans in Atlanta, urinating on trees with new age gurus in Sedona. Borat on his first ever trip abroad presents a picture of America that only Charles Manson would recognize.


      http://www.hbo.com/alig/bios/
      --
      Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
    3. Re:In my country there is problem... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      I love borat =)

      I just didn't get the joke at first heh.

      "If she cheat on me, I will CRUSH HER"

    4. Re:In my country there is problem... by Threni · · Score: 1

      Yegshamesh!

      http://www.boratonline.co.uk/

    5. Re:In my country there is problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you Chinese or something?

  7. Kazakhstan Television by DNAspark99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where they interviewed by Borat ?

    "first we have a party...then we shoot dog!"

    --

    --
    Society has traditionally always tried to find scapegoats for its problems. Well, here I am.
    1. Re:Kazakhstan Television by LouieFarah · · Score: 1

      You know what, that's the first thing I thought about too when I saw Kazakhstan, haha. -Louie

    2. Re:Kazakhstan Television by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ahhh sexy time!!! [rubs hands together]

  8. The saddest part for me... by FireballX301 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is that this was an actual news event.

    Seriously. Before Columbia, the 'successful' missions were always tucked away in some 'World Update' column on page 10 inside the paper, or never got a second glance by most readers. The fact that this is both on CNN and .\ is kind of unnerving to me.

    How long will it take before we can clear the aura of fear surrounding space missions?

    1. Re:The saddest part for me... by Urusai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When they clear the aura of fear living in a world of terrorism, felons, druggies, people with dark skin, and people who do not accept Jesus as their personal savior and GW as His chosen one.

    2. Re:The saddest part for me... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Ummmm these things were always in the news, you just never paid attention to them...

      What fear?, seems to me your the only one afraid of space.

    3. Re:The saddest part for me... by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How long will it take before we can clear the aura of fear surrounding space missions?

      Indeed. I look forward to the day that a spacecraft landing or taking off is as routine and non-newsworthy as an airplane landing or taking off.

    4. Re:The saddest part for me... by Colol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No kidding. This U.S. has become the equivalent of a dog with its tail between its legs. Space Shuttle tragedies and terrorism didn't stop us before, but nowadays every shuttle is destined to explode and the next Osama Bin Laden is lurking in every shadow.

      At this rate, newspapers might as well start running "Sun rose this morning" on the front page to lull us into safety from the deadly evil things waiting at every bend.

      On the one hand, maybe it's relatively major news because they came down in a Russian capsule (but then again, this isn't the first time). On the other, buck up, America! We didn't get ahead in anything by sitting idly by because it's safer. Shit happens.

      Now let's explore something, for crying out loud. Scientific discovery doesn't (usually) happen by itself.

    5. Re:The saddest part for me... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Call me crazy, but I like it this way. Previously people complained that no one cared about space and that all these missions. This was a very valid complaint. I've heard way too many people say stuff like "What are we wasting our taxes on?"

      And no, I'm not saying that its lucky that NASA lost another batch of astronauts as much as I'm saying space-travel is dangerous and these kinds of things will happen. We do space-travel and space mission because they are important. The important of space means risk taking and spending money.

      Not to mention, when events are in the news frequently they become more important to people. They talk about them. They might get a better understanding of the issues, the science, etc. Considering space isn't very politicized outside of missile defense, you can usually get some decent information from the mainstream media.

      Thanks to things like Hubble, the Mars rovers, the Chinese manned orbit, Rutan, etc space certainly feels more real and important to me, and I assume to many others. I hope it never goes back to page 10 of the World section.

    6. Re:The saddest part for me... by dascandy · · Score: 1

      > ... and .\ is ...

      Is that a slashdot mirror?

    7. Re:The saddest part for me... by Daagar · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the media is portraying this as FUD, not as the betterment of science/spaceflight/etc. The only reason it is getting press is because it is 'shock news' - granted, in this case it was a success, but it is just a platform for them to spring from when something else goes wrong down the line. I enjoy things like this getting press, I just don't want to to be because they can say things like 'disaster averted'.

  9. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up! BORAT reference

  10. Re:Somebody was going to anyway.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the post 9/11 world cosmonauts fight terrorism!

  11. Kazakhstan by JakeD409 · · Score: 0, Troll

    You mean Kazakhstan is a real place?? I thought it was just a country they made up for Borat in Da Ali G show. This isn't even a joke, I'm serious.

    1. Re:Kazakhstan by scbysnx · · Score: 0

      the acceptance of this form of prejudice is so old its not even funny

    2. Re:Kazakhstan by JakeD409 · · Score: 0

      Wow, didn't realize people on here were so intent on putting down people for bad geography skills. I'll be sure to keep that one in mind, thanks a lot guys.

  12. Forgiv me ..... by NegativeOneUserID · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, space station crew lands safely you!

    1. Re:Forgiv me ..... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Nonono, "In Soviet Russia, the crew doesnt explode IN MIDAIR"

      --
    2. Re:Forgiv me ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In soviet russia, space flies into your butt.

    3. Re:Forgiv me ..... by teknokracy · · Score: 1

      No no, in Soviet Russia, planet lands on you!

    4. Re:Forgiv me ..... by NegativeOneUserID · · Score: 1

      Er ..... Ok folks, you *DO* know that Kazakhstan is in former soviet russian territory? Right?

    5. Re:Forgiv me ..... by roach2002 · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, "In Soviet Russia" jokes get tired of YOU!

    6. Re:Forgiv me ..... by coopex · · Score: 1

      Technically it's in the Soviet Union, Soviet Russia only applies to Russia when it was part of the USSR, it'd be "In Soviet Kazakhstan...". I've heard Ukrainians and some other former Soviets get pissed at being called Russian.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  13. and by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a sign of kazakh hospitality, the crew were each given one donkey and a jar of insecticide.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
  14. What did you expect? by Palal · · Score: 1

    This is a RUSSIAN capsule! The rockets are also reliable, since they are the ones that hold the nukes..... Then once they're about to reach their "expiration date" they're launched off into space. Just think what will happen to us if WWIII starts one day :(.

    --
    -Palal
    1. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh... the nukes they launch at us will be nice and fresh?

  15. The problem with the U.S. program by eastshores · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that NASA is not afforded the opportunity or direction to involve the hearts and minds of the average American in their missions. They are forced to rely on outside help for that (e.b. KSC Visitors Complex) The truly appealing quality of the early missons were that it was NOT safe and was far from routine. That's what brings out the crowds.. thats why Nascar is the fastest growing sport in the U.S. Yet, the primary focus of the NASA mission is Safety!

    Safety is no different than security, there is a point where it is a limiting factor. It has to be balanced reasonably to achieve the primary objectives, otherwise it's value is lost.

    Return to flight will draw a good portion of Americans back into the program. For that mission everyone will waive their flags and cheer upon success. Shortly thereafter shuttle launches will again be routine and Americans will not involve themselves as much as would please me. But then what government program can't you say that about?

  16. MOD PARENT UP (not flamebait) by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    The parent post is a little confrontational, but makes a good point.

    Really, people need to get to grips with the idea that bold actions are inherently risky. We should do what we can to reduce risk, but can't let it paralyze us into inaction. When failure isn't an option, success becomes absurdly difficult.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP (not flamebait) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When failure isn't an option, success becomes absurdly difficult."

      Hone up your reading comprehension skills, and then explain to us why failure SHOULD be an option.

  17. uhm, no by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    that rockets are modernized versions of the first russian icbms made in 1950ies. but those old icbms weren't used for decades.

    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
  18. unluckyiest guy in the world by stud9920 · · Score: 0

    ...must have been Yuri Gagarin : took off, orbited the earth many times, and still managed to land in the Soviet Union

  19. Geez, guys, it's just a return capsule by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Informative

    And yes, Kazakhstan is a country (formerly USSR member), where the Baikonur Cosmodrome is located -- this is where Russian ISS-related flights are launched.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Geez, guys, it's just a return capsule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check out Kaz-Rus space program: http://www.spacemart.com/news/launchers-05z.html

  20. Even funnier! by Rhinobird · · Score: 1, Funny

    What would be even funnier, is if the people that pop open the craft are all wearing ape masks.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  21. Soyuz safty record is comperable to shuttle by A+non-mouse+Cow+Herd · · Score: 5, Informative

    They had 2 fatal accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) and a number of *extremely* close calls. The reentry of Soyuz 5, and the first launch attempts of Soyuz 18 and Soyuz-T 10 come to mind. (the latter very much went KABOOM on the pad, the crew were only saved by the escape system, which pulled them away at about 20 Gs...)

    Soyuz has less total fatalities than the shuttle, but it carries less people per flight, and has flown less flights.

    The fact that the most serious Soyuz failures were early in the program is somewhat in its favor, but from a statistical point of view, it is pretty much a wash. Although the system is in many ways simpler and more robust than the shuttle, the recent Soyuz flights have had their share of problems. The people building and operating it have done an amazing job, but have a severely limited budget and a crumbling infrastructure.

    So if you get a chance to ride either, you may as well jump on it :P

  22. PIcs of .kz by caluml · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not have a look at Kazakhstan?

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker
  23. NASACAR by aapold · · Score: 1

    Combines the best elements of both? Seriously, though, we just lost a shuttle crew last time it was up and you're complaining that it focuses too much on safety?

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  24. Borat, like Barry... by BlakeCaldwell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I like you, do you like me?

  25. Interviewing The Astronauts. by DelawareBoy · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Borat Sagdiyev will interview them.

  26. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Landing "safely in Kazhakstan" sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

  27. Wow! by bradleyland · · Score: 1

    Wow. Borat wasn't kidding. Just have a look at their roads! Their problem is clearly transport.

    1. Re:Wow! by caluml · · Score: 1

      Hey - that's their motorway! You should see the smaller roads :)

      --
      Get your own free personal location tracker
  28. The greeting by Mike+Farooki · · Score: 1, Informative

    U, S, and A! U, S, and A!

  29. ... just curious ... by ninjagin · · Score: 1
    What does a soyuz look like (on the outside) after it makes bumpdown?

    We tend to see pictures of the cosmo/astronauts whenever one of these things lands, but I'm curious about how the vehicle withstands the head of re-entry and what it looks like when it's all over.

    Can anyone point me to some decent pictures?

    Thanks

    --
    .. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
    1. Re:... just curious ... by bbc · · Score: 1

      "What does a soyuz look like (on the outside) after it makes bumpdown?"

      Use http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/search.cgi to search for "soyuz" and "landing". Mostly landing party, but also some interesting pictures of the capsule.

    2. Re:... just curious ... by ninjagin · · Score: 1
      Hey, thanks!

      --
      .. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
  30. Trying to be Funny. . . by JJ · · Score: 1

    This is good news even without the "Space Station Crew".

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  31. Chalk up another one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've finally landed a man on Kazakhstan!

  32. Complete the joke... by Meetch · · Score: 1
    An American, a Russian, and an Italian landed just outside of Kazakhstan.

    The (pick one of the nationals) says: (what?)

    The (pick one of the remaining nationals) says: (what?)

    The (insert remaining national here) then says: (punch line).

    Anyone???